1997 JTR(SC) 754
1997 AIR(SC) 2600 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2556 ; 1997 3 CLT(SC) 9 ; 1997 2 CurCC(SC) 240 ; 1997 3 ICC 364 ; 1997 5 JT 362 ; 1997 4 Scale 154 ; 1997 10 SCC 128 ; 1997 2 SCJ 35 ; 1997 3 SCR 1054 ; 1997 KHC 1677 ; 1997 4 Supreme 606
1997(4) Supreme 606
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, Represented by Managing Director -Appellant
versus
P. Venkaiah & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3404 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3541 of 1994)
Decided on 28-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, B. Parthasarthy, Advocate.
For The Respondent : Ms. C.K. Sucharita and B. Kanta Rao, Advocates.
Important Point
In absence of adduction of any evidence through the vendor or the vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon to determine compensation under Land Acquisition Act.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.63
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23
(A) Sections 63 of the Evidence Act and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 govern the admissibility and proof of sale deed documents in land acquisition proceedings. Section 63 of the Evidence Act relates to the evidentiary value of certified copies of public documents, while Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for compensation fixation and acquisition procedures. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on July 7, 1977, acquiring land for a Bus Stand Complex, and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently modified by the sub-Court and High Court forms the subject-matter of the dispute. The dispute arises because the certified copy of the sale deed was relied upon without examining the persons connected with the document, which is impermissible under the principles laid down in the referenced cases.
(B) The core legal principles are that a certified copy of a sale deed cannot be used as conclusive proof of title or value without calling the vendee or vendor for examination; proof of the contents and relative features of the land must be established through direct evidence from parties connected with the document; and reliance on a document without examining the persons connected with it renders the order illegal.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on July 7, 1977, acquiring 14 acres 32 guntas of land in Bachiragh village near Suryapet, Nalgonda District (A.P.) for constructing a Bus Stand Complex. Compensation was initially awarded at Rs. 7,500 per acre, enhanced to Rs. 3.60 lacs per acre by the sub-Court, and later reduced to Rs. 2,25,000 per acre by the High Court, based on Exs. A-2, A-9, and A-11 (sale deeds). It is admitted that neither the vendee nor the vendor of these sale deeds was examined, and the validity of relying on the certified copy of the sale deed without such examination is challenged.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that in the absence of evidence adduced through the vendor or vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon, as reiterated in Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P. and State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad. Acceptance of a certified copy under Section 51-A relates only to production of the original and does not dispense with proof of the document's contents. The view taken by the High Court and the reference Court is therefore entirely illegal.
Issues:
Whether a certified copy of a sale deed can be relied upon for enhancing compensation in land acquisition proceedings without examining the persons connected with the document (vendor and vendee)?
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that proof of the contents of sale deeds and relative features of the land under acquisition must be established by examining the parties connected with the document. Relying on a certified copy without such examination is illegal and does not satisfy the requirements of evidence law and land acquisition procedure.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the judgment and award of the reference Court as modified are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the reference Court for disposal afresh after providing an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh. No costs are awarded.
(A) Sections 63 of the Evidence Act and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 govern the admissibility and proof of sale deed documents in land acquisition proceedings. Section 63 of the Evidence Act relates to the evidentiary value of certified copies of public documents, while Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for compensation fixation and acquisition procedures. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on July 7, 1977, acquiring land for a Bus Stand Complex, and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently modified by the sub-Court and High Court forms the subject-matter of the dispute. The dispute arises because the certified copy of the sale deed was relied upon without examining the persons connected with the document, which is impermissible under the principles laid down in the referenced cases.
(B) The core legal principles are that a certified copy of a sale deed cannot be used as conclusive proof of title or value without calling the vendee or vendor for examination; proof of the contents and relative features of the land must be established through direct evidence from parties connected with the document; and reliance on a document without examining the persons connected with it renders the order illegal.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on July 7, 1977, acquiring 14 acres 32 guntas of land in Bachiragh village near Suryapet, Nalgonda District (A.P.) for constructing a Bus Stand Complex. Compensation was initially awarded at Rs. 7,500 per acre, enhanced to Rs. 3.60 lacs per acre by the sub-Court, and later reduced to Rs. 2,25,000 per acre by the High Court, based on Exs. A-2, A-9, and A-11 (sale deeds). It is admitted that neither the vendee nor the vendor of these sale deeds was examined, and the validity of relying on the certified copy of the sale deed without such examination is challenged.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that in the absence of evidence adduced through the vendor or vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon, as reiterated in Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P. and State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad. Acceptance of a certified copy under Section 51-A relates only to production of the original and does not dispense with proof of the document's contents. The view taken by the High Court and the reference Court is therefore entirely illegal.
Issues:
Whether a certified copy of a sale deed can be relied upon for enhancing compensation in land acquisition proceedings without examining the persons connected with the document (vendor and vendee)?
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that proof of the contents of sale deeds and relative features of the land under acquisition must be established by examining the parties connected with the document. Relying on a certified copy without such examination is illegal and does not satisfy the requirements of evidence law and land acquisition procedure.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the judgment and award of the reference Court as modified are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the reference Court for disposal afresh after providing an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh. No costs are awarded.
Order
Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on July 7, 1977, acquiring 14 acres 32 guntas of land of Bachiragh village near Suryapet Nalgonda District (A.P.) for the purpose of constructing a Bus Stand Complex. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 7,500/- per acre. The sub-Court on reference awarded the considerated compensation @ Rs. 3.60 lacs per acre. The High Court reduced it to Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre. It is now not in dispute that Exs. A-2, A-9 and A-11 were relied on to enhance the compensation. Admittedly, none of the persons connected with the documents, namely, neither the vendee nor the vendor has been examined. This Court in Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P.1, held that in the absence of adduction of any evidence through the vendor or the vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon. This was reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad2. Acceptance of certified copy of the sale deed under Section 51-A relates only to the production of the original sale deeds but it does not dispense with proof of the contents of the documents, relative features vis-a-vis 193, the land under acquisition. All is needed to be proved by examining the persons connected with the same and parties to the document. Following the above ratio, we hold that the view taken by the High Court and that of the reference Court is entirely illegal.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the reference Court as modified stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the reference Court for disposal the matter afresh after an opportunity is given to adduce evidence afresh and the same is considered. No costs.
Appeal allowed. Matter remanded.
********